Stephan Paukner :: syslog

It appears to be very difficult to decide what lens could be optimal for one’s needs. There’s so much to choose from, so many different parameters and prices, but the price is not always a good indication for quality. You really have to search for lens tests, because the lens parameters alone only provide some basic data.

As I secretly wished that the Canon EOS 40D would already get an FF sensor, I planned to take the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM lens, what Sobotka lists at a price of €999. The lens got a recommendation in the 09/2006 issue of the German DigitalPHOTO magazine. As telephoto lens I wanted to take the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM at a later time, and Sobotka lists it at handsome €1,649. That should have been enough for some time, as I plan to do landscape photography primarily, and 24mm is already a reasonable wide angle focal length. Whereas DSLR camera bodies might get renewed after some years, the lenses are usually intended to be kept for some generations. Therefore I’d rather buy good lenses in the first time and keep it for several years, and so I’d intend to keep them usable for a possible future FF sensor.

However, as the EOS 40D now has an APS-C sized sensor with a crop factor of 1.6, this means that the 24-105mm lens would correspond to a 38-168mm, and this is not in the wide angle range anymore. If I really want to insist on it, then I’d need a separate dedicated wide angle lens to cover the region between 24 and 38mm, what corresponds to a real focal length between 15 and 24mm. The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM could do this at a high cost, corresponding to a 25-56mm on APS-C. But the 10/2006 issue of the German ColorFoto magazine gives no recommendation for using it on FF sensors. Maybe the 2nd edition of that lens is better, but it’s even more expensive (€1,649). Sigma’s 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM could be used on FF sensors (ColorFoto 08/2007), and on an APS-C sized sensor it’s a 19-38mm, but it doesn’t allow filters, and polar filters are essential tools for landscape photography. Anyway, that lens got a bad rating in ColorFoto 08/2007 for use on APS-C, but others say it’s quite useable there (DigitalPHOTO 05/2007). The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM seems to be a little better choice, although ColorFoto 08/2007 doesn’t give a recommendation either. It corresponds to a 16-35mm and would even outrange the 24mm of the mentioned lens on FF sensors, but it also costs €759 and I don’t really want to buy two lenses at once, as everything becomes too expensive and impractical.